effective assistance by failing to provide competent representation that is adequate to ensure a fair trial or, more broadly, a just outcome.35 82. In the instant case, with regard to the first aspect, that the “defence counsel should not be restricted in the exercise of representing his client”, the Court notes that the Applicant was represented by two different counsel , once during the preliminary hearing and then during the appeal process before the Court of Appeal. The Court observes that nothing on the record shows that the Respondent State impeded the counsel from accessing the Applicant and consulting him on the preparation of his defence, neither was counsel denied adequate time and facilities to enable the Applicant to prepare his defence. 83. With regard to the second aspect “that counsel should not deprive a client of effective assistance by failing to provide competent representation that is adequate to ensure a fair trial or, more broadly, a just outcome”, the Court notes that the Applicant makes two claims. The first one being that his counsel at the Court of Appeal abandoned two grounds of appeal out of three and the second one being that Advocate Kabuguzi, who represented the prosecution during the preliminary hearing is the same advocate who represented the Applicant during his appeal, before the Court of Appeal, inevitably violating his right to a fair trial and leading to a miscarriage of justice. 84. With regard to the claim that the Applicant’s counsel during the appeal proceedings, presented only one ground of appeal while discarding two other grounds,36 the Court observes that the sole ground which was retained is that the trial judge grossly erred in law and fact when he held that the offence of murder had been thoroughly proven by the prosecution beyond 35 Henerico v. Tanzania, ibid. 36 Page 2, paragraph 2 of the Applicants Notice of Motion for review from the judgement of the Court of Appeal of Tanzania dated 15 April 2014. It states that “he was denied the right to a fair trial as the honourable court failed to scientifically and clinically satisfy itself before determining the defence of intoxication, which he raised” and “That this Application should be supported by the Affidavit of the Applicant sworn on the 15 day of April 2014”. 22